Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« Sunday Heidi Weimaraner -- Update: 10 Months Old. | WILLisms.com | "The Sawdust Caesar Ends Up In The Gutter" »

We Need An Exit Strategy For . . . Afghanistan?

natoflags.jpg
Multinational flags at ISAF in Kabul - courtesy of NATO photos.

This looks like a trifle on the surface, but it could be the tip of an ugly iceberg. At an upcoming NATO summit regarding Afghanistan, superpower Belgium is getting nervous and wants an exit strategy - and is rattling the nerves of some of the other participating nations.

"While heads of government are to make a show of unity over Afghanistan at tomorrow's alliance summit in Riga, Belgium's Defence Minister has questioned the future of Nato's most important mission."

Belgium has a whopping 246 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan:

Though Belgium only makes a small military contribution to the Nato mission, the Minister's comments will alarm senior figures at the alliance's headquarters where there is already concern that France is getting cold feet about its role in Afghanistan. Paris has remained publicly committed to the mission but Nato sources are concerned about the possibility of an eventual French withdrawal. They are pressing for an enhanced UN profile in Afghanistan to reassure the French who are suspicious about an expanded role for Nato because of Washington's hold over the alliance."
Is this the 'multilateralism' that the Democrats assured us was the cure for all diplomatic and military ills the world over? It seems that when the going gets tough (and it is getting tough in Afghanistan) and when we need them most of all, certain European partners can be counted on to cut and run. I wonder where they got the idea from. I suppose I could kinda sorta see Belgium giving up were it a coalition partner in Iraq. The defeaning drumbeats of defeat coming from the MSM has even shaken some erstwhile stalwart Republicans here in the U.S. But Afghanistan is the good war on terror, as opposed to the Halliburton quagmire of lies that is Iraq - and so it is disheartening to see coalition partners backing away from this far less controversial conflict. Are these francophonic jitters going to lead to wider fissures in the coalition, that eventually dooms Afghanis to another dark age under the Taliban?

Remember: a great many leftists such as Michael Moore and MoveOn.org were opposed even to the invasion of Afghanistan, insisting that the proper response to 9/11 should be self-flagellation. Keep an eye out to see whether Democrats will now begin pitching the usual excuses to cut and run from Afghanistan that they are using in Iraq, such as the war is 'unwinnable' and 'incompetently run'.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 27 November 2006 08:16 PM

Comments

Jeebus H. Chrysler.

Posted by: Ken S at November 27, 2006 08:31 PM

Ken, you are right on and this was predicted. Those defeatist democrats. It makes me upset. Well, the next 'poll' is two years away !

Posted by: Chief RZ at November 27, 2006 08:57 PM

great post. remember: the euroweenies couldn't defend themselves from hitler; only the UK and the USA fought back. and that was in their backyard.

they haven't changed: still mostly appeasers; cowards; anti-semites.

soon they will be muslim, too.

Posted by: reliapundit at November 27, 2006 10:05 PM

Reliapundit is absolutely right. Most European forces that are sent are not combat troops and their Rules of Engagement are to stay away from "hot" zones. You know who that leaves to do the actual fighting, right? The usual suspects. Even the British are losing their will to fight

Things were going well in Afghanistan until we foolishly turned over command to NATO a few months ago. Things have been in a downhill slide ever since. We are ALONE folks, in our ability to militarily defend anything.

Posted by: opine6 at November 30, 2006 11:17 AM